Latest UN IPCC report considered and rejected notion that global warming was effecting the jet stream-per UN IPCC author and climate science professor

Latest UN IPCC report considered and rejected the idea of global warming effecting the jet stream. It wasn't even mentioned in the report (parag. 7):

2/15/14, "No, global warming did NOT cause the storms, says one of the Met Office's most senior experts," UK Daily Mail, Daivd Rose

"One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.

Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. 

Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

His statement carries particular significance because he is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office. 

Prof Collins is also a senior adviser – a ‘co-ordinating lead author’ – for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo. Last weekend, she said ‘all  the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to  play’ in the storms.

Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But he said this has nothing to do with the storm conveyor belt.

He said that when the IPCC was compiling its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change last year, it discussed whether warming might affect the jet stream. But, he went on, ‘there was very low confidence that climate change has any effect on the jet stream getting stuck’. In the end, the possibility was not even mentioned in the report.

Prof Collins declined to comment on his difference of opinion with Dame Julia. Five months ago, in a briefing on the IPCC report to Ministers, Dame Julia conceded the consequence of warming for rainfall ‘is not simulated well’ by climate models – though they are the basis for most of what she and other scientists say about the effects of climate change.

Last April, after the temperature fell to -11C in Aberdeenshire, the coldest April temperature for more than 100 years, Dame Julia said the cold winter and spring might also be due to global warming, because of ice melting in the Arctic. 

Meanwhile, the Met Office has continued to issue questionable long-term forecasts. In mid-November, two weeks before the first of the storms, it predicted persistent high pressure for the winter, which was ‘likely to lead to drier-than-normal conditions across the country’. 

It added that its models showed the probability of the winter being in the driest of five official categories was 25 per cent. The chances of it being in the wettest category was 15 per cent. 

Infamously, in April 2009, the Met Office promised a ‘barbecue summer’ – which then turned out to be a washout. It forecast the winter of 2010 to 2011 would be mild: it was the coldest for 120 years.

In 2007, the Met Office said that globally, the decade 2004-2014 would see warming of 0.3C. In fact, the world has not got any warmer at all in this period. 

At the beginning of 13 of the past 14 years, the Met Office has predicted the following 12 months would be significantly warmer than they have been. This, says the sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, indicates ‘systemic’ bias."

============================

The $1 billion a day global warming industry is sold with headlines saying some alleged proof of it "may" be happening. Now they're trying the "jet stream" which a Met Office scientist refutes in article above.:

2/15/14, "Wavier jet stream 'may drive weather shift'," BBC

======================

Dame Julia Slingo is UK Met Office Chief Scientist:

2/16/14, "Deliberately or otherwise, Slingo has misled the public," Bishop Hill blog

"Almost every scientist who has said anything about the floods has said that there is no way to link them to global warming - Brian Hoskins was fairly clear about this on the Today programme. The latest is Matt Collins from the University of Exeter, quoted in the Mail on Sunday:

Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

Only Julia Slingo has tried the opposite tack. When asked about a possible link she said

...all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play’

This was sneaky. She was asked whether the floods - the ones we are seeing now - are related to climate change. Her answer related to hypothetical future climates.

In the circumstances, her words were very misleading and have been the cause of a considerable media frenzy. To avoid giving the impression that that this was deliberate, she should now make a clear statement of agreement with Prof Collins and explain that her words only related to computer model predictions of future climates. To do otherwise would look very bad." 

.

Obama gas guzzling SUV parked outside home of California billionaire and anti-Keystone activist Tom Steyer, 4/4/2013

4/4/2013, "Irony? Here's POTUS SUV outside home of billionaire climate change activist #Keystone opp Tom Steyer @Jeff Elder pic.twitter.com93nHc3rGlo," Carla Marinucci twitter

 
























.

NOAA scientists cite lack of El Nino for Calif. drought, top White House science official Holdren denies NOAA scientific findings

2/15/14, "White House: "Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"," Zero Hedge, Bruce Krasting

"As Obama headed west, the White House's Science Assistant, John Holdren, had this to say about the California drought:

"Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"

Really? It's all climate change?

There are many forces that shape weather patterns. One of the most significant is the El Nino/ La Nina cycles. This is what NOAA has to say about the connection between El Nino and rainfall in the South West:

El Niño results in increased precipitation across California and the southern tier of states.

The California drought has persisted for the past three years. It's no coincidence that there have been no El Nino conditions during this time period: 

The WH has a climate agenda - this is payback for a lot of support (money). Okay, but when the chief scientist at the WH ignores the scientists who actually look at weather patterns, then one is forced to doubt everything the WH says on the topic.

Misdirection By Holdren???"

"Dr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Prior to joining the Obama administration Dr. Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, as well as professor in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Director of the independent, nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center. Previously he was on the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, where he co-founded in 1973 and co-led until 1996 the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in energy and resources. During the Clinton administration Dr. Holdren served as a member of PCAST through both terms and in that capacity chaired studies requested by President Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition of surplus weapon plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy, U.S. energy R&D strategy, and international cooperation on energy-technology innovation.

Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as a member of the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Trustees from 1991 to 2005, as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control from 1994 to 2005, and as Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2009. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, the John Heinz Prize in Public Policy, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the Volvo Environment Prize. In December 1995 he gave the acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists and public figures in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997."




.

Sochi, Russia is a subtropical climate, one of warmest places in Russia in winter. For $1 billion/day global warming industry it's perfect place to stage Winter Olympics. With world watching they can say warm temps are due to global warming and US taxpayers must pay billions-NY Times

In 2012 alone $1 billion a day was "invested" in the notion of "global warming." 

2/7/14, "The End of Snow?" NY Times, Porter Fox, op-ed. "Of the 19 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics, as few as 10 might be cold enough by midcentury to host them again."...

-------------------------------------

3/6/2010, "Tarnishing Hockey’s Golden Moment," NY Times, Dave Anderson

Subtropical Sochi, NY Times

"Questions about the Sochi site add to the situation. The Winter Games there would be an “economic and ecological catastrophe,” Boris Y. Nemtsov, a former Russian deputy prime minister, told Foreign Policy magazine last week.

“He,” Nemtsov said, referring to Putin, “has found one of the only places in Russia where there is no snow in the winter. He has decided to build these ice rinks in the warmest part of the warmest region. Sochi is subtropical. There is no tradition of snow or hockey there. In Sochi, we prefer football, volleyball and swimming. Other parts of Russia need ice palaces. We don’t. Sometimes, it seems like God doesn’t even want the Olympics in Sochi.” 

Nemtsov said the “bigger concerns are organized crime, which is very active there, and government corruption.”

He added that “roughly 5,000 people were forced out” of their homes to create room for Olympic facilities but that “thanks to the corruption and incompetence of authorities,” those people have not been “adequately compensated for their property or been given equivalent housing elsewhere, as they were promised.”"...photo caption, "A subtropical climate is one of the issues Sochi, Russia, is facing as the host of the 2014 Games," photo NY Times

===========================

2/11/14, "Don't sweat it: Sochi's warm weather explained," CNN, Brandon Miller, Meteorologist 
.
"Most people think of Russia in winter and picture the snow-covered cathedrals of Moscow, where average temperatures in February range between minus 10 Celsius (14 Fahrenheit) and minus 4 C (24.8 F) and all but require the wearing of those iconic fur hats.

Sochi, however, is one of the southernmost cities in Russia.

It's located over 1,000 km south of Moscow and has a completely different climate. Indeed, on most winter days, Sochi (and the nearby town of Adler, where many of the events are being held) are the warmest locations in the country."...

.

.

To GOP members forbidden by GOP 'leader' Boehner to discuss climate science and told to 'change the subject to jobs,' here's a list of 1350 peer reviewed papers disputing the notion of man-caused global warming, categorized, easy to use

Over 325 unique lead authors and over 1500 total authors on the list. In 2012 $1 billion a day was "invested" in the notion of "global warming." 6/27/13, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode

2/12/14, "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm," PopularTechnology.net

"The list has been cited by Scientists (1, 2) and Professors (3).

Do not accept any criticisms of this list without first reading the detailed rebuttals."...

------------------------------------------------------ 

Quotes from John Kerry and Al Gore:
.

""You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004)

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."

- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2000)...
.

=====================
.

Table of Contents:

Preface
Disclaimer
Counting Method
Criteria for Inclusion
Criteria for Removal
Formatting
Purpose
--------------------------------------
Rebuttals to Criticisms
--------------------------------------
Highlights
--------------------------------------
General
Climate Sensitivity
Antarctica
Arctic
Clouds
Coral Reefs
Deaths
Disease
Ecological
Glaciers
Greenland
Gulf Stream
Hockey Stick
Medieval Warm Period
Roman Warm Period
Ocean Acidification
Permafrost
Polar Bears
Sea Level
Species Extinctions
--------------------------------------
Natural Disasters
Droughts, Floods
Earthquakes
Heat Waves
Hurricanes
Storms
Tornadoes
Wildfires
--------------------------------------
Satellite Temperatures
Urban Heat Island
Weather Stations
--------------------------------------
1,500-Year Climate Cycle
CO2 Lags Temperature
Cosmic Rays
Lunar
Solar
--------------------------------------
An Inconvenient Truth
Armed Conflict
Climategate
IPCC
Kyoto Protocol
Socio-Economic
Stern Review
--------------------------------------
Historic
--------------------------------------
Journal Citation List
Journal Notes
Definitions
Impact Factor
Scientist Credentials
Sources
Updates
--------------------------------------
.
Acknowledgements
Citations

Tip: Use Ctrl+F (PC) or Command+F (Mac) to search this page.

 

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].
ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.

Counting Method: Only Peer-Reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers; * Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers.

This is a dynamic list that is routinely updated. When a significant new number of peer-reviewed papers is added the list title will be updated with the new larger number. The list intentionally includes an additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates. Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated.

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction.

Formatting: All papers are cited as: "Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors". All Supplemental papers are preceded by an asterisk and italicized; * Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers. Ordering of the papers is chronological per category.

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;...
.

Rebuttals to Criticisms:

> 2,258 Meaningless Search Results
> Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
> Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
> AGW Observer: Rebuttal to "Anti-AGW papers debunked"
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part I: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part II: Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part III: Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics" Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers"
> DeSmogBlog: Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"
> Roger Pielke Jr.: Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"
> Skeptical Science: Rebuttal to "Meet the Denominator"
> Rebuttal to 7 Spammed Lies
> Rebuttal to "Does size matter?"
> Rebuttal to Mothincarnate
> Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
> Rebuttal to PSU ENGR 408 Class Paper
> Rebuttals to Published Alarmist Papers
> Origin of the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed Paper List

Criticism: The list has been debunked.
Rebuttal: The list has never been debunked. All known criticisms of this list have been rebutted or a change made to correct the issue. The existence of a criticism does not make it true, as invalid criticisms of the list have been repeatedly shown to be based on lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. In most cases these long rebutted criticisms are now years old and have no relation to the current version of the list. Changes include; clarifications and corrections made to the list when necessary. All corrections made have been insignificant and have never affected the list count.

Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk (*) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.

Criticism: Papers on the list are Commentary or Editorials.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is a peer-reviewed research or review paper. Certain scholarly journals that do not focus on primary research such as, Trends in Parasitology include research-related 'Opinion' articles that are peer-reviewed. These scholarly works should not be confused with general commentary or editorial pieces that appear in magazines.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
.
Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is outdated.
Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 800 papers published since 2000 and over 1000 papers published since 1990 on the list.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a physical science paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a research paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are "research" papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Review papers under go the same peer-review process as research papers and are considered scientifically valid.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed because it is a "Letter".
Rebuttal: "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is hidden behind a paywall.
Rebuttal: Whether a full copy of a paper is made freely available is at the discretion of the journal's publisher. Any similar list would have the same limitations since archiving a paper without a publisher's permission would violate copyright law. Where a full copy of a paper was found online, a (PDF) link was added after a paper's name.

Criticism: All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.
Rebuttal: While there are thousands of climate related papers, only a small percentage of these even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: No paper is listed without first confirming the journal is peer-reviewed. With all journals that are challenged as to their peer-review status, further confirmation is done using bibliographic databases from EBSCO, Scopus and Thompson Reuters. This detailed information is provided in the Journal Notes following the list.

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from over 350 other journals on the list.

Criticism: Author [Insert Name] is not a skeptic.
Rebuttal: It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that, "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."

Criticism: Most of the papers come from a small amount of authors.
Rebuttal: Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading. ISI Highly Cited Researchers such as Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen will naturally be well represented on the list. There are still over 325 unique lead authors and over 1500 total authors on the list.

Criticism: Many authors/scientists have demanded their papers be removed from the list.
Rebuttal: Only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and this paper was removed after it was determined that defending it's inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though he was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. "Please remove this article from your list of skeptics"). The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands.

Criticism: A Blog post, Wiki page or YouTube video debunks/refutes a peer-reviewed paper on the list.
Rebuttal: That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. The list includes any rebuttals to published comments following the original paper.

Criticism: Low climate sensitivity is not defined.
Rebuttal: The IPCC states that, "climate sensitivity is likely (66%) to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C." Thus, climate sensitivity estimates where the mean does not exceed 2°C (low end of the IPCC range) or the high end of the range does not exceed 3°C (the IPCC mean) are considered to support skeptical arguments for a low climate sensitivity.

Criticism: The list does not present a scientific argument.
Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scientific argument. The purpose of the list is clearly stated - to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments."...
  

=======================
.

It's perfect: The climate "crisis" justifies stealing from US taxpayers in perpetuity:

"“If you really believe or accept that global warming is a legitimate, real, immediate threat, then "there's no amount of money you wouldn't pay to avoid it,” he said."...6/27/13, Mike McKenna, GOP consultant and House insider
Source, 6/27/13, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode  .

Ed. note: This Politico article uses the term "science" to refer to something doesn't exist. There's no scientific proof that human CO2, especially evil American CO2, is killing the planet. Even if CO2 had such power, China is by far the leader in global CO2 and is rapidly building new coal plants. US CO2 has plunged. US EPA science clearly states Obama rules to lower CO2 at US power plants will have no effect on CO2 emissions. 
.

================================ 
.

Scientist resigns from elite science society over its support of the global warming industry:
. 

8/10/2010,  "Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society," published by Global Warming Policy Foundation
 
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. 

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it."...

("Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)" (Sometime after his resignation from APS, Dr. Lewis passed away).







.

With science impossible to ignore, Kansas lawmakers weigh resolution urging Congress to resist following fed. goals claiming to 'address climate change', that such are based on false assumptions. EPA itself freely admits Obama power plant rules will have no effect on CO2. EPA and UN IPCC know China controls global CO2 but they only care about 1 thing. US politicians created the climate industry with decades of no-strings US taxpayer cash.

 In 2012 alone $1 billion a day was "invested" in the notion of "global warming." 

=======================

2/13/14, (Kansas)"House panel taking up climate change measure," AP via Topeka Capital-Journal

"A Kansas House committee is weighing a resolution that urges Congress to resist following President Barack Obama’s plan for addressing climate change.

The nonbinding resolution is before the House Energy and Environment Committee. It declares that the federal goals for addressing climate change are based on false assumptions about the role of carbon dioxide and human activity.

Environmentalists argue that the resolution is based on bad science and ignores data that emissions and humans are altering sea levels and weather patterns.

The resolution cites Obama’s 2013 plan that calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and encourages development of renewable forms of energy." via Free Rep.

==========================

EPA stated the science on 1/8/14 and 9/20/13 in the Fed. Register that Obama proposed rules for power plants to reduce CO2 emissions will have negligible effect on CO2 emissions: 

1/8/14, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," US Federal Register

"A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 01/08/2014"

"I. General Information," "A. Executive Summary"

"3. Costs and Benefits"

"Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO ₂ emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022. <sup>[2]"... 
 

================================

EPA made same statement in Sept. 2013:

9/20/13, EPA  text (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no notable effect on CO2 emissions:

Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”
page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”

p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?”  

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022.</sup> The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.

p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?  

As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)

China was 'given permission' 6 years ago to import 60 tons of ivory from Africa. Phonies in London now meet to discuss crisis that elephants are becoming extinct because of China demand. Who gave China 'permission'? BBC

2/13/14, "Uncovering China's illegal ivory trade," BBC, Damian Grammaticas

"A major conference in London is considering how to protect Africa's wildlife, including rhinos and elephants, from an unprecedented surge in illegal trafficking. Conservationists warn that the growth in the illegal ivory trade means elephants could be wiped out in parts of Africa in the next few years. As demand from China pushes levels of poaching and smuggling to new highs, we investigate China's illegal ivory traders.

In a nondescript shopping mall in Beijing sellers offering antiques and artworks are crammed together. The shops are piled high with stone carvings, jade and ivory. Some have whole elephant tusks on display, others ivory figures, statues and intricately worked scenes.

As soon as we enter one shop with cabinet after cabinet of carvings, the owner gets tense and defensive. "We have a licence. We have a legal licence to sell ivory. It's hanging there," he says pointing to the wall.

China has around 150 legal, government-licensed ivory shops. This is one of them. They are the only places allowed to sell ivory to individual buyers. The government says ivory carving is an ancient art it wants to keep alive. 

Chinese consumers, increasingly wealthy, desire ivory....

China's government was given permission to import one consignment of more than 60 tonnes of ivory from Africa six years ago. Pieces carved from that legal stockpile can be sold in China as long as they have a driving-licence-sized photo identification. 

But when we look closely at the pictures on the photo IDs in the shop we are in, the images do not quite match the carvings on sale. When we ask about the discrepancy the shopkeeper tells us it is time to leave.

"It's just a matter of the angle the picture is taken from. You shouldn't make a fuss about it," he says, adding: "I'm off. I'm closing now. I told you. It's an angle problem."

It is a common scam. Reusing old IDs to sell new pieces of ivory can be a way of laundering ivory that is not from the legal stockpile but illegal, smuggled into China....

Demand from China is a major factor in the surge in poaching and smuggling. 

Some believe the answer is a total ban on ivory sales. China does not want that. 

But while the buying goes on, so does the killing, pushing elephants in parts of Africa towards extinction....

"In 2011, we had 25,000 elephants illegally killed on the African continent. Last year, it was 22,000. So that was almost 50,000 elephants illegally killed for their ivory in just two years. This is decimating the African elephant population and we will soon see local extinctions in some areas, in particular within Central Africa.""...






.